FAIZAN UDDIN, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 9th September, 1976 terminating the services of the petitioner (Annexure P. 1), as well as the order dated 20-10-1982 (Annexure P. 4) passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, bhopal and order dated 4th March, 1983 (Annexure P. 5) passed by the Board of Revenue M. P. Gwalior. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Samiti Sewak on 5-4-1968 by the Board of Directors of Central Co-operative Bank, Raisen (Respondent No. 1 ). By the impugned order dated 9-9-1976 (Annexure P. 1), the President of Respondent no. 1 terminated the services of the petitioner under Rule 18 with effect from 11-9-1976. The petition filed an application under Section 55 (2) of the Madhya pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative societies, Bhopal (respondent No. 3) challenging the aforesaid order of termination of his services. By order dated 8-7-1982 (Annexure P. 3), Respondent no. 3 set aside the order of termination of petitioner's services and reinstated him with all benefits of the post held by him. Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal against the said order before the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies (Respondent No. 4) who by his order dated 20th October, 1982 (Annexure P. 4) allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by respondent No. 3, Deputy Registrar co-operative Societies. Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal against the said order before the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies (Respondent No. 4) who by his order dated 20th October, 1982 (Annexure P. 4) allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by respondent No. 3, Deputy Registrar co-operative Societies. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue (Respondent No. 5) which was dismissed on 4-3-1983 (Annexure P. 5) which led to the filing of this petition by the petitioner challenging the order of termination of his services as well as the Appellate Order passed by the Joint Registrar and the Board of Revenue (Annexures P. 1, p. 4 and P. 5) ( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the services of the petitioner as Samiti Sewak was terminated on the ground that the recoveries for the year 1975-76 made by the petitioner were less than 30 percent in respect of this contention he invited my attention to the Resolution of the sub-Committee of the respondent No. 1, Central Bank, dated 17-6-1976 (Annexure P. 6) in which it was decided and resolved that the services of those samiti Sewak be terminated under Rule 18, who had made recovries per cent. ( 4 ) ON these facts he urged that the order of the termination of petitioner's services (Annexure P. 1) is not a termination simpliciter services were no longer required but the petitioner's services had been teminated because, according to the respondent Bank, the petitioner had made recovries less than 30 percent during the year 1975-76. He submitted that the order arbitrary having been made without giving an opportunity of being heard on the question of recoveries. He submitted that in fact the petitioner had made recovries above 40 percent and as such his services could not be terminated there appears to be much substance in the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. the resolution dated 17-6-1976 (Anne ure P.)that the services of those sewaks of the society be terminated who had made recoveries less than 30 percent during the year, 1976. the resolution dated 17-6-1976 (Anne ure P.)that the services of those sewaks of the society be terminated who had made recoveries less than 30 percent during the year, 1976. This appears to be the only basis for terminating the services of the petitioner by order date 9-9-1976 (Annexure p. 1), as the order of termination is self eloquent inasmuch as itself mentions that the services of the petitioner were being terminated in view of the decision taken by the Sub-Committee in its meeting dated 17-6-1976. This leads to the conclusion that the petitioner's services were terminated conclusion that the the recoveries was not satisfactory If in fact the petitioner had made recoveries less than 30 per cent, his services could not have been terinated but he should have been given an opportunity of being heard in that be behalf because it is basic principle of law that no person can be condemned without giving him an opportunity of being heard. No rule has been shown or any practice has been suggested that the services of those Samiti Sewaks can be terminated if they had made recoveries less than 30 per cent during the year. Even if this was so, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to explain the same and, as the petitioner submits that he had made about 40 per cent recoveries his services could not be terminated on that account. ( 5 ) A reading of the order dated 20-10-1982 (Annexure P. 4) passed by the joint Registrar, it appears that this point was raised before him but was not properly appreciated. So is the case with the order of the Board of Revenue. In these circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed. ( 6 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed. The order dated 9-9-1976 (Annexure P. 1), terminating the petitioner's services as well as the order dated 20-10-1982 (Annexure P. 4) and the order dated 4-3-1983 (Annexure P. 5)passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhopal and Board of Revenue gwalior, respectively are quashed and the petitioner is reinstated as Samiti sewak with effect from 9-9-1976. He shall be entitled to his salary and all other consequential benefits from the said date. Respondent No. 1 shall also pay rs. 250/- as costs of this petition. The outstanding amount of security, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed. .